Minnesota as Culturally Different from Rest of Midwest

[Skill and Chance]

Something about the state seems to fit much better with the emerging Democratic coalition than its neighbors.  Any idea what is going on here and why there has been so little midterm backlash there? 

[Mr. Illini]

I would disagree. The left-wing culture in the state, I would argue, is more divided. Minnesota's Democratic stronghold has always been the eastern and especially northeastern portion of the state. This is a blue-collar, union-strong, socially conservative region. This is separate from the Twin Cities, which features a more affluent, educated, socially progressive region. The population former is a prime demographic for those who are dropping from the Democratic ranks.

Indeed, this is happening. Minnesota has been trending R in Presidential elections, against the trend of its neighbors in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois. 2014 aside.

[Boston Bread]

I would disagree. The left-wing culture in the state, I would argue, is more divided. Minnesota's Democratic stronghold has always been the eastern and especially northeastern portion of the state. This is a blue-collar, union-strong, socially conservative region. This is separate from the Twin Cities, which features a more affluent, educated, socially progressive region. The population former is a prime demographic for those who are dropping from the Democratic ranks.

Indeed, this is happening. Minnesota has been trending R in Presidential elections, against the trend of its neighbors in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois. 2014 aside.

There isn't any statistically significant trend in MN or any other upper Midwest state, either.
From 1992-2012 they've been largely stable, with a few outlier bumps (MN in 1996, WI in 2008). And actually 2000 was the worst democratic performance in these states, relative to the nation, with 2008 being the best there except in MN, where 2004 and 2012 saw more democratic PVIs. Not at all indicative of a long term trend.

It's true rural MN has become less democratic at the presidential level, but the opposing trend in the cities have balanced it out. MN isn't getting more conservative anyhow - if it does trend R, it will be because other states are becoming less white while MN stays about the same.

[Miles]

^ Since 2004, most of MN outside the Twin Cities has trended noticeably R. Northern/eastern MN, northern WI/MI could be some serious long-term problems for Democrats.

[Boston Bread]

^ Map has more blue than I thought, actually I guess you could make a case for MN trending red presidentially since 2008/2012 had the weakest D PVIs in a while, not counting 2000. Although it's still fairly democratic at the local level due to the strength of the state party.
Maybe the statewide trend is due to Democrats having a high ceiling and low floor at the presidential level as of late? Maybe in a loss like 2004 the state is more D relative to the nation than a win like 2008 and 2012? I heard that line of thought somewhere.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I can see Minnesota doing an "Indiana 2008" in 2016 with Scott Walker.

[Ban my account ffs!]

There are a whole host of factors at play in Minnesota.  The newer suburbs are full of younger baby boomers and gen xers that migrated to Minnesota from strongly Republican plains states.  The last GOP state house majority leader was from North Dakota and lived in Maple Grove, a conservative 2nd ring suburb of Minneapolis.

The arrowhead region is insular and has been slowly declining for decades.  The iron range is now dominated by older baby boomers as their kids left for greener pastures.  But these areas aren't really that socially conservative.  They are pretty liberal.  Unlike the working class whites elsewhere, these ones liberalized with the party.  Duluth is, of course, as progressive as places like Portland or Boston... But more left wing on economic issues.  They put bike lanes all over Duluth... A city covered in snow five months out of the year situated on a large steep hill oike San Francisco.

The farm areas have trended republican but the DFL is still as competitive as ever there.  Those areas have always been D friendly, but not hostile to the GOP.

But culturally, Minnesota very much has its own thing.  North Dakota shares many of the same traits, as does western WI and NE IA and NW IL.

I think Minnesota is the epicenter of that distinct upper midwestern/northern culture but it only encompasses small portions of the surrounding states which are being influenced in other ways.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Blah

[Sol]

It should also be noted that the Minnesota GOP is an embarrassingly weak state party, in contrast to the overperforming state parties in the rest of the Midwest.

[Lief 🗽]

Part of Minnesota's presidential trend is that it was a swing state that both campaigns contested in 2004. In 2008 and 2012 Obama more or less ignored it.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

There is good reason that McCain or Romney didn't even try.  Minnesota is always amongst the leaders in turnout, and not changing all that much.  It has a strong progressive tradition that comes out to vote in the biggest cities.  Obama won it twice big ignoring the state.  Bush couldn't bring it any closer than 4 points in 2004, when he had huge appeal in GOP-friendly midwestern suburbs. 

[Kraxner]

Something about the state seems to fit much better with the emerging Democratic coalition than its neighbors.  Any idea what is going on here and why there has been so little midterm backlash there?  

Minnesota's economy has done much much better than the rest of the midwest as a whole, so despite minnesota having negative approval ratings of obama just like 43 states are. The statewide democratic party got credit for a much better recovery than most of the midwest.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/state/MN/governor

Look at exit polls and quite a rarity where 67% of residents rated economic conditions in the state as good, this allowed Mark Dayton and Al franken to win by a larger margin than their initial elections years back which were decided on margins of >0.20%


Also the state has a lot of Scandinavian americans in the iron triangle and parts of minnesota, theres a weird correlation in midwest where areas of Scandinavian american ancestry lean democrat and german americans lean republican. And the deciding factor being a high minority turnout that puts democrats to the finish line or a low one which gives republicans a breathe of air.



Green is Scandinavian ancestry





http://www.geocurrents.info/geopolitics/elections/swedish-americans-vote-democrats-national-origins-voting-behavior-united-states


Scandinavian descents voting more democrat might not seem unusual given the more social democratic policies in their homeland.  While Germany has been led by a centre-right ordoliberal party the CDU as their natural governing party since WW2.

[henster]

I can see Minnesota doing an "Indiana 2008" in 2016 with Scott Walker.

Wisconsin is doing significantly worse economically than Minnesota I am not sure how his record would play out there.

[Kraxner]

I can see Minnesota doing an "Indiana 2008" in 2016 with Scott Walker.

Wisconsin is doing significantly worse economically than Minnesota I am not sure how his record would play out there.

Most of the mid-west isnt doing great either, Illinois which has been in the hands of a democrat governor since 2002-2014. Has been in a deeper economic hole than wisconsin.

[checkers]

There was a really good post in a similar thread to this back when I just lurked in the forum which argued that Minnesota wasn't really moving substantially to the right, but kept a fairly consistent pattern of having just enough of a strong, loyal democratic majority for it to remain blue, but by often small margins. Minnesota's highest Democratic vote relative to the nation occurred in Republican landslide years such as 1972 (where the Republican actually won), and 1984 (where Mondale's majority was tiny), while in Democratic landslides such as 1964, it tends much more to the average Democratic vote. This indicates a consistently strong Republican vote, but a consistently stronger Democratic one - and shows that the numbers of voters for each party hasn't changed all that much. The Republican presence in Minnesota is pretty clear - even during the period in which Minnesota was a DFL bastion, it elected a number of Republican governors, sent two Republicans to the senate for a considerable amount of time etc.

This is not to say that Minnesota hasn't moved right - I think it has, but that the degree of change is sometimes overstated. I also think that it is probably moving back left again from its rightward move in the 90s/early 2000s, though I'm not sure if this is a permanent trend or just a reaction to the fact that Minnesota is currently doing well economically (especially in comparison to Wisconsin), and continued backlash to the shutdown that happened with the Republicans controlled the legislature.

[Sol]

Also, MN is gradually undergoing a geographical realignment of sorts, as some of the more rural areas become more GOP friendly and the suburbs get more D.

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

I would disagree. The left-wing culture in the state, I would argue, is more divided. Minnesota's Democratic stronghold has always been the eastern and especially northeastern portion of the state. This is a blue-collar, union-strong, socially conservative region. This is separate from the Twin Cities, which features a more affluent, educated, socially progressive region. The population former is a prime demographic for those who are dropping from the Democratic ranks.

Indeed, this is happening. Minnesota has been trending R in Presidential elections, against the trend of its neighbors in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois. 2014 aside.

For the time being though Obama managed to win Minnesota twice by a fairly comfortable margin because a lot of those blue collar voters are ancestral Democrats and he had them plus the twin cities area vote.

I don't think that Minnesota is that different from a lot of the midwest. If you look at midwestern politics, there are a lot of solidly left-liberal progressives on one side and hardcore sometimes evangelical cons on the other. There's a solid mix of red and blue.

[hopper]

I would disagree. The left-wing culture in the state, I would argue, is more divided. Minnesota's Democratic stronghold has always been the eastern and especially northeastern portion of the state. This is a blue-collar, union-strong, socially conservative region. This is separate from the Twin Cities, which features a more affluent, educated, socially progressive region. The population former is a prime demographic for those who are dropping from the Democratic ranks.

Indeed, this is happening. Minnesota has been trending R in Presidential elections, against the trend of its neighbors in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois. 2014 aside.

Just population growth in Minneapolis and St Paul is keeping Minnesota Dem I think.

For the time being though Obama managed to win Minnesota twice by a fairly comfortable margin because a lot of those blue collar voters are ancestral Democrats and he had them plus the twin cities area vote.

I don't think that Minnesota is that different from a lot of the midwest. If you look at midwestern politics, there are a lot of solidly left-liberal progressives on one side and hardcore sometimes evangelical cons on the other. There's a solid mix of red and blue.